{"id":72744,"date":"2025-05-04T02:47:11","date_gmt":"2025-05-04T02:47:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/72744\/"},"modified":"2025-05-04T02:47:11","modified_gmt":"2025-05-04T02:47:11","slug":"parking-charges-plan-for-popular-birmingham-parks-despite-backlash-full-list","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/72744\/","title":{"rendered":"Parking charges plan for popular Birmingham parks despite backlash – full list"},"content":{"rendered":"

Birmingham City Council has controversially proposed introducing parking charges at Sutton Park, Lickey Hills and Sheldon Country Park\"AutumnAutumn leaves at Lickey Hills Country Park, Birmingham.(Image: Jacob King\/PA Wire)<\/p>\n

Birmingham City Council is planning to push ahead with controversial plans to introduce parking charges at three beauty spots despite backlash from residents.<\/p>\n

The crisis-hit council<\/a> passed through another painful budget earlier this year which included an enormous wave of ‘savings’ and cuts to services, as well as a council tax hike for a second successive year.<\/p>\n

One particularly divisive proposal was to introduce parking charges at Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield<\/a>, Lickey Hills Country Park, on the Worcestershire<\/a> border, and Sheldon Country Park, close to Birmingham Airport<\/a>.<\/p>\n

READ MORE: <\/strong>Birmingham residents make demand amid \u2018outrageous\u2019 update on council crisis inquiry<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

A consultation was held recently on the plans which showed a \u201csignificant proportion\u201d were not in favour of the proposed parking charges, as a council report now reveals.<\/p>\n

Despite this, the Labour<\/a>-run council is planning to proceed with the proposals – albeit, with slightly revised charges.<\/p>\n

The report states that for Lickey Hills Country Park, 919 respondents of the consultation (78.4 per cent) felt access to the park should remain free.<\/p>\n

For Sheldon Country Park, that figure was 120 respondents (65.9 per cent) while for Sutton Park it was 2,741 respondents (68.2 per cent).<\/p>\n

Acknowledging the opposition to the proposed charges, the council report continued: \u201cThe introduction of parking charges is often controversial and unpopular as users are asked to pay for something that has previously been free.<\/p>\n

\"SheldonSheldon Country Park(Image: Birmingham Mail\/Iain Findlay)<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, the projected income from parking charges still falls short of the cost of maintaining the three parks in question.<\/p>\n

\u201cTherefore it is deemed reasonable to ask park users to contribute financially to the upkeep and maintenance of these parks.<\/p>\n

\u201cDespite the introduction of parking charges, there will still be a requirement for financial support from the council\u2019s general fund to maintain and manage these parks.\u201d<\/p>\n

It went on to say that charges across \u201cdestination sites\u201d throughout the UK has become common practice.<\/p>\n

The report said: \u201cIn the vast majority of cases, parking charges for these sites have been in place for several years.<\/p>\n

READ MORE: <\/strong>Explained – Birmingham City Council’s plans to tackle unauthorised encampments<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cIntroducing charges on Birmingham<\/a>\u2019s sites will be in line with national best practice to offset the cost of maintaining these destination sites.\u201d<\/p>\n

It added that there was more support for revised parking charges which were lower than the consulted ones.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis support for reduced parking charges was echoed by the feedback from park stakeholders who argued if the introduced parking charges are lower (than the consulted charges) it will minimise the negative impact on the trade of businesses within the parks,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

\u201cReduced charges are more popular amongst consultees and whilst that would imply an income deficit, we expect the visitor numbers to increase (with less displacement parking) at such levels as to mitigate the impact.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both the original and revised proposed charges for each of the parks can be found below:<\/p>\n

Sutton Park:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Original proposals:<\/p>\n